RULE OF LAW – EU’S COMMON CONSTITUTIONAL “DENOMINATOR” AND A CRUCIAL MEMBERSHIP CONDITION ON THE CHANGED AND EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF THE RULE OF LAW VALUE IN THE EU CONTEXT
{"title":"RULE OF LAW – EU’S COMMON CONSTITUTIONAL “DENOMINATOR” AND A CRUCIAL MEMBERSHIP CONDITION ON THE CHANGED AND EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF THE RULE OF LAW VALUE IN THE EU CONTEXT","authors":"M. Vlajković","doi":"10.25234/eclic/11903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades the Rule of Law has been emphasized as a core constitutional value common to all Member States of the European Union, although its substantial content was not precisely determined enough in the European context. Moreover it was defined as a multilayered value that encompasses other values such as democracy and fundamental rights, and it was under-lined as one of the most important conditionality criteria for the EU enlargement policy. The ongoing crises of EU values, and more precisely the Rule of Law crisis, appeared long before, but reemerged fiercely with the creation of the “illiberal state“ concept in Hungary and then in Poland. The EU has implicitly and more successfully, through the work of its institutions tried to compensate for the inadequate and a “a little too late“ reaction, as well as for the lack of monitoring in the previous enlargement circles. The aim of this article is to show how, the rule of Law was stressed as a leading value shaping democratic constitutions and national, as well as supranational, legal systems. It is important to demonstrate that the Rule of Law is not only “coined” for the EU or Council of Europe purposes, but that it is firstly a value that is in the core of each constitutional tradition of a sovereign state. Therefore, in order to be promoted as common and set as a strong and rigid condition for future members, it should be, pro futuro, analyzed, understood and endorsed by EU institutions on each level. Finally, we take Western Balkan countries as an example where the Rule of Law is defined as a value but also as a core basis of the Negotiation Chapters 23 and 24, determined in a more thorough and precise way than in the EU and among its Member States, where, we could agree, it should have been in the first place. We point out to the need of getting closer to its uniform understanding in and outside of the EU and therefore to the need to create a continuous and stable Rule of Law concept both substantially and formally.","PeriodicalId":448091,"journal":{"name":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
For decades the Rule of Law has been emphasized as a core constitutional value common to all Member States of the European Union, although its substantial content was not precisely determined enough in the European context. Moreover it was defined as a multilayered value that encompasses other values such as democracy and fundamental rights, and it was under-lined as one of the most important conditionality criteria for the EU enlargement policy. The ongoing crises of EU values, and more precisely the Rule of Law crisis, appeared long before, but reemerged fiercely with the creation of the “illiberal state“ concept in Hungary and then in Poland. The EU has implicitly and more successfully, through the work of its institutions tried to compensate for the inadequate and a “a little too late“ reaction, as well as for the lack of monitoring in the previous enlargement circles. The aim of this article is to show how, the rule of Law was stressed as a leading value shaping democratic constitutions and national, as well as supranational, legal systems. It is important to demonstrate that the Rule of Law is not only “coined” for the EU or Council of Europe purposes, but that it is firstly a value that is in the core of each constitutional tradition of a sovereign state. Therefore, in order to be promoted as common and set as a strong and rigid condition for future members, it should be, pro futuro, analyzed, understood and endorsed by EU institutions on each level. Finally, we take Western Balkan countries as an example where the Rule of Law is defined as a value but also as a core basis of the Negotiation Chapters 23 and 24, determined in a more thorough and precise way than in the EU and among its Member States, where, we could agree, it should have been in the first place. We point out to the need of getting closer to its uniform understanding in and outside of the EU and therefore to the need to create a continuous and stable Rule of Law concept both substantially and formally.
几十年来,法治一直被强调为欧洲联盟所有成员国共同的核心宪法价值,尽管其实质内容没有在欧洲范围内得到足够精确的确定。此外,它被定义为包含民主和基本权利等其他价值观的多层价值,并被强调为欧盟扩大政策最重要的条件标准之一。欧盟价值观的持续危机,更确切地说,是法治危机,在很久以前就出现了,但随着匈牙利和波兰“非自由国家”概念的产生,它们又猛烈地出现了。欧盟通过其机构的工作,含蓄地、更成功地试图弥补不充分和“有点太晚”的反应,以及之前扩大圈子中缺乏监督。本文的目的是展示法治如何被强调为塑造民主宪法和国家以及超国家法律体系的主要价值。重要的是要证明,法治不仅是为欧盟或欧洲理事会(Council of Europe)的目的而“创造”出来的,而且首先是一种价值,它是一个主权国家每个宪法传统的核心。因此,为了促进共同,并为未来的成员国设定一个强大而严格的条件,它应该在未来得到欧盟各级机构的分析、理解和支持。最后,我们以西巴尔干国家为例,在这些国家,法治被定义为一种价值,同时也是谈判第23章和第24章的核心基础,以比欧盟及其成员国更彻底和精确的方式确定,我们可以同意,法治应该放在首位。我们指出,需要在欧盟内外更接近统一的理解,因此需要在实质上和形式上创造一个持续和稳定的法治概念。